Fashion Controversy: Is It Still Fashion Design If You Use a Butterick Pattern?
-->
A few weeks ago we posted a story on a St. Louis designer, AFV by Ashley Dayley, who was set to showcase her looks with 5 other designers at an event at the contemporary art museum. Well, according to an outraged reader of Fashion Indie, the designer is a “ripoff” for using a Butterick pattern (specifically number 6015) to create her dresses. We have the Teresa H’s comment below…
Many of us in the online design/sewing community were flummoxed, and some rather outraged, when a very popular reissued pattern (Butterick 6015) showed up on the runway - credited to Ashley Dayley as an original design but was a complete ripoff (and copyright infringement) of this pattern and its original designer.
It’s astonishing the lack of integrity, and utter cluelessness that this designer showed in presenting this as her own “design”.
“Dayley called it vintage sexy.” the St. Louis Times wrote. We call it “ripoff.”
Now we’ve done some research (shockingly we do try some actual reporting sometime) and we found the original Butterick pattern that one of our readers referenced.
Unfortunately, we don’t have any photos of AFV by Ashley Dayley to prove our reader correct, but we’re working on it.
Aside from that, is it really cheating when a designer uses a pattern from a company like Butterick? Isn’t the whole “Vintage Revival” movement all about using these patterns with new fabrics to make them modern? I personally don’t see anything wrong with a designer using a Butterick pattern since these we’re sold for the purpose of creating clothes. Yes some one else designed the pattern, but you designed the dress by picking the fabrics and crafting the dress, right?
Fortunately another Fashion Indie reader agrees with me. Read her comment below in response to Teresa H…
Someone here must be the Rainman of fashion…or a chronically bored person with too much time on their hands. Ashley, and other designers world wide have used shapes as well as patterns to design or create a newer, fresher version of a garment. If this blogger comment was given by a professional whom is a judge or editor-in-chief of Vogue magazine…I can understand to some degree. But why were THEY not featured at fashion week? Why were they never sought after for their amazing original clothing line? Hmmmm sounds to me like they are what I like to call being their “internet” self. How dare to comment about this young designer to ruin her good name. I thought her clothes were fresh, fun and frankly….better than a Butterick pattern.
Touche.
Popularity: 4% [?]
Comment by Emilie on 18 April 2008:
You should know that this pattern was reissued recently and is currently available new on Butterick’s website:
http://www.butterick.com/item/B4790.htm?tab=dresses&page=6
Because it is easy to sew, it is very popular with home sewers.
Comment by colleen on 18 April 2008:
It’s one thing to use a shape or a concept from another designer, it’s another thing entirely to rip off a complete design from a commercial sewing pattern and call it your own. That’s like telling people that you designed your car because you selected the paint color and upholstery. Or, the person who assembled the car calling him/herself a car designer because he/she installed the transmission. As a designer, Ms. Dayley failed to do just that. While her sewing skills might be excellent, what creativity did she apply to her work as a seamstress? What would her interpretation of this unusual (to me) dress construction have been? We’ll unfortunately never know, because she didn’t design, she just plagiarized another’s work.
Comment by Jonquil on 18 April 2008:
I doubt that if the designer had copied an entire Charles James dress (and if so, mad props for skills!) anybody would be calling her dress fresh and original. Which is the point. A designer is expected to riff and build on previous work, not to copy it wholesale. It wouldn’t have been that hard to change the style — the neckline, the shape of the skirt below the waist, the hemline — and make it new and fresh. Instead, the designer simply copied. That ain’t design.
As to your commenter’s point that “If this blogger comment was given by a professional whom is a judge or editor-in-chief of Vogue magazine…” … this seems an odd criticism to find on a fashion blog.
Comment by Jackie on 18 April 2008:
I think the point of all the critics is the fact that this pattern is not just some obscure dress pattern from long ago. The pattern has recently been reissued by Butterick, and has been one of their most popular patterns for over a year. If using new fabrics makes you a talented designer, then every home sewer who made this pattern is a talented designer, including myself.
Comment by La BellaDonna on 18 April 2008:
Jackie is quite right. This isn’t a question of someone using “Rainman” skills to recognize some long-forgotten gem and brutally criticizing some brilliant young designer for being “inspired” by it. She made a dress, using a VERY popular current pattern, made no discernable changes which made it her own, and called it her design. That’s plagiarism and that’s fraud. The pattern has a note on the back, notifying users that it is not intended for commercial purposes. Sounds as if that’s what the “designer” was trying to do.
Comment by deirdre on 18 April 2008:
Huge difference between designer and sewer. Ashley Dayley sewed a fine dress, but she didn’t design the pattern.
Comment by Marianne on 18 April 2008:
The commenter didn’t ruin Ashley’s good name - Ashley did that all by herself by first plagiarizing, then not responding publicly and openly to the criticism. Her first foray, in short, is not particularly promising.
For the education of the blogger, I’ll quote verbatim from the back of a the Butterick pattern envelope:
“Sold for individual home use only and not for commercial or manufacturing purposes.”
I read a lot of blogs written by seamstresses who work far more creativity into their designs than someone who calls herself a designer. They were not featured at fashion week because they know that choosing a fabric for a commercial pattern doesn’t make one a fashion designer.
Comment by Tracy on 18 April 2008:
There are few points to ponder I’d like to add here. First and perhaps not a much consequence to some, but, the pattern in question has been reissued and is widely available so it’s no longer out of reach of the mainstream pattern buying public. I know I can’t make multiple copies of this dress and sell them so where does that leave things?
Secondly, following your comments logic— Yes some one else designed the pattern, but you designed the dress by picking the fabrics and crafting the dress, right?—-then I, and every other person in the world who sews garments from commercial patterns, knits sweaters, etc., has the right to call themselves designers based on merely their sewing/knitting/etc skills and choice of fabric/fiber/color. Every garment I’ve ever made cuz I picked out the fabric or substituted the yarn for a knitted sweater makes me a designer! Really?!? Do you mean that?!? WOW I never considered myself a designer before, thanks, but I won’t be accepting the title, I reserve that for others who are truly gifted with the insight of innovation and prefer not to dumb down the profession.
I hesitate to respond with comments directed specifically to the designer. (I won’t kick a person when their down) I haven’t seen her other work, only the dress in question. I am not editor in chief of Vogue as your rebuttal commenter suggests I need to be, although I don’t know why I have to be to call a rose a rose. But I would like to send her kudos for being featured in fashion week and wish her all the luck in the world, unfortunately I’m afraid she’s going to need more than most. Hang in there kid and next time knock their socks off if you’ve got it in you!
Comment by Teresa H. on 18 April 2008:
Take a look and decide for yourself: http://www.dressaday.com/STL_show2.jpg It’s EXACTLY the same. (It’s the dress on the right.)
I’m not “Rainman” though I think that’s pretty funny, actually, I just know that pattern because I own it.
Comment by Teresa H. on 18 April 2008:
Take a look and decide for yourself: http://www.dressaday.com/STL_show2.jpg It’s EXACTLY the same. (It’s the dress on the left.)
I’m not “Rainman” though I think that’s pretty funny, actually, I just know that pattern because I own it.
Comment by Teresa H. on 18 April 2008:
Sorry for the duplicate posts, I meant to say “left” the first time.
Comment by ARW on 18 April 2008:
I agree with Jackie’s comment. Ms. Dayley did not simply copy a design, which would require patternmaking skills and some creative interpretation; she used an actual printed sewing pattern, which makes it copyright infringement and PLAGIARISM, and plagiarism is a sad, pathetic, reprehensible crime. She isn’t even original in her plagiarism since a year ago I noticed a L.A. ‘designer’ who was selling knock-offs of this pattern in a Silverlake boutique. Also, this was not the only sewing pattern that she used for the St. Louis show. She also used Simplicity #3964 pattern designed by Wendy Mullen (a bona fide designer), and even possibly #3867 (though this design is less distinct, and so harder to prove that it is plagiarism.) If recognizing these patterns makes me a ‘Rainman’, geek, loser or whatever, I will happily accept the title. My hobby and my passion is sewing… I sew from commercial patterns in my free time, and I also read the blogs and reviews of other home sewers. I will gladly accept any pejorative name you can throw for the joy that my hobby brings me. I almost always make design changes to the sewing patterns that I use–changes to the pattern itself, not simply fabric and trim–but I would never call myself a designer for doing so because I am still starting from a printed source, and the intellectual property of a true designer.
Comment by crescentaluna on 18 April 2008:
Tsk tsk, Daniel, you’re taking a very silly stance on this … There’s *design*. And there’s *tailoring.* And they are both admirable and art forms in their own right, but they are not the same. Saying “I designed that” has a very specific meaning. Perhaps you’re thinking that Ashley just quoted the original dress, but no, baby, just look at ‘em! She hasn’t behaved too well since, apparently, so I’m hoping both she and you rethink this one.
Pingback by bits and bobbins » archives » (not so) random links on 18 April 2008:
Comment by Daniel Saynt on 18 April 2008:
Holy Shit. Guess I was on the wrong side of the fence on this one. Of course, if it’s an exact pattern rip it’s a bad thing, but aren’t many of the designers out there just doing this and calling their stuff “Vintage Reproductions”? Plus weren’t Buttericks made for reproduction?
Would it be different is she said they weren’t her designs? Would that change anything?
I guess I’m just a bit of a novice when it comes to the fashion design process, since so much is focussed on showcasing and less on the business of the beast.
Please comment and educate me.
Comment by wundermary on 18 April 2008:
Like many above: I believe that there is a gulf of difference between designing and sewing. Does anyone remember when Martha Stewart took a load of heat for using other people’s recipes and presenting them as her own? A chef and cook are not the same thing just as a designer and a seamstress are not.
It is true that almost every conceviable shape combination have been used at some time in history. So, designers tend to draw inspiration from many sources and design to make the elements new and fresh. If Ashley’s idea was to present the dress as new and updated by fabric choice, she’s no more of a designer than my mom, who made this dress back in the day. If she had designed the fabric, that would make her a FABRIC DESIGNER, not a dress designer.
If Ashley wants to promote herself as a clothing designer, it is important that she design clothing. It is also important that she understand that not everyone will love what she does and there will be criticism, which needs to be responded to with grace. Martha Stewart responded to the charges of plagerism by changing the format of her show and featuring the chef. However, if Ashley wants to be a designer, she needs to design.
Someone who can pick out a copy should not be degraded by presenting them as an idiot savant or horribly bored. The right and ability to call a spade a spade is not solely owned by fashion professionals.
“Aside from that, is it really cheating when a designer uses a pattern from a company like Butterick? …Yes some one else designed the pattern, but you designed the dress by picking the fabrics and crafting the dress, right?” Wrong. Designers do not use patterns from any company, save their own.
Comment by Tony on 18 April 2008:
Oh puhleeze, people…she lives in St. Louis! What else is going to inspire her?!? Move to New York, honey, and rip off everyone - they will love you for it. (Marc Jacobs recently copied a steel blue leather jacket I bought in London four years ago down to every detail…I almost bought it again!)
Pingback by Fashion Indie - MyBlogLog on 18 April 2008:
Comment by silent voice on 18 April 2008:
I know this situation a little more first hand and have some thoughts on this- To the best of my ability to ascertain this pattern has moved well into the area of public domain due to the age of the pattern- http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/public_domain/ Some of the points are well taken and as with all design originality is primary-I know Ashley and she never said,or alluded that the dress was her design- that dress is so recognizable as a vintage design that anyone with a half way conceived idea as to being fashion “smart” would recognize that-so no great revelation that the blogapostlistas could have the bright shining light on themselves as to their brilliance…. the problem with the current thread is that this line of thought is defamatory to a perfectly talented and capable designer, and that maybe someday the mass you all will be rocking your grandchildren talking about sewing a “Dayley” with them- O K so I am getting carried away but my point would be lighten up just a bit. when viewing art and master painters it is obvious that they all developed styles of painting which would indicate a movement and some imitation of each others work.
Blogapostlista a word coined by me feel, free to plagiarize it as your own-being followers of the master blogger
Comment by Neefer on 18 April 2008:
Would it be different is she said they weren’t her designs? Would that change anything?
Perhaps not if she had used a pattern that really was out of print, but this one is not. I’m sure that McCall Pattern Company would have been thrilled to feature her work as a result of a competition using Butterick patterns.
Alas, this was not a McCall sponsored competition.
But then, perhaps our expectations are just too high. We expect originality from fashion week designers, especially if the design is being passed off as their own.
Comment by Jackie on 18 April 2008:
Sewing patterns specifically state on the envelope that they are only for home use and not for commercial use. I wonder if McCalls/Butterick will take an interest?
Comment by Nina on 18 April 2008:
Using the “you are a nobody, therefore you have no say” argument is pretty lame rhetoric, and decidedly mean-spirited.
But I understand that Butterick isn’t claiming any legal action. This is St Louis, not Milan. It’s would be tricky to prove that she has ripped off a design which is pretty generic after all (if it weren’t for the fact that she informally admitted it). She isn’t Martha Stewart, and this issue will be forgotten tomorrow.
Comment by Cookie on 18 April 2008:
I would like to see a fashion designer call someone like Michael Kors and say that since he’s done with them, could he please send over the patterns from his last show, so they could use them to “design” their own upcoming collection.
Uuummmmm….no.
You can use established design ideas, but hopefully you’ll make them your own by choosing your own seam placement and construction, your own slant on finishing, whatever skills and instincts you have that made you want to pursue design. But you don’t buy a Butterick pattern for $4.99 (which, incidentally, is their most famous and best selling pattern ever) and call it your design. There is no creative instinct that is called upon when cutting out a commercial pattern and following the instructions included in the packet.
Comment by Candy on 18 April 2008:
Apparently, Ashley Dayley can’t even take credit for sewing the dress as it was sewn by her partner Felicia Pease, who made a sincere apology about the incident (which unfortunately, Ms. Dayley is not big enough to do herself.) So, she not only lied about designing it, she didn’t even sew it herself! Sad.
http://www.dressaday.com/2008/04/how-not-to-respond-to-criticism.html
Comment by silent voice on 19 April 2008:
great censorship- am I not allowed a voice since it is different than yours- I disagree with the mean spirited nature of all of the blog spots blasting this girl-especially since the original blogger ( chronicallyuncool.com ) asked if the dress in question was from a pattern and the answer was without question -”yes” with no denial- with a lack of information ,you all lambasted her and deleted my comments based on the fact that I disagree with the forum. get all of the facts before you march blindly. Jenny I put a call out to you to shed light as to the question posed to Ashley Dayley
Pingback by Timo Rissanen: Fashion Creation Without Fabric Waste Creation: "Is It Still Fashion Design If You Use a Butterick Pattern?" on 19 April 2008:
Comment by Kathleen on 19 April 2008:
I guess I’m just a bit of a novice when it comes to the fashion design process, since so much is focussed on showcasing and less on the business of the beast. Please comment and educate me.
This part of the fashion design process is NOT -as you say- “focused on showcasing” and “less on the business of the beast”. I am floored that you say/think this. Is your background on the retail floor? Comparatively, coming from the manufacturing side, we would describe *you* as being on the “showcasing side” so I guess it’s all a matter of perspective.
Pattern making (or stealing as in this case) is ENGINEERING; the polar opposite of sales “showcasing” and is very much a business decision. This is something so obvious and well known. Home sewers are well educated and very sophisticated these days; on the internet, they have access to (most) of the material formerly only available to the trade. I recognize most of the names here as being visitors to my site.
About copying in general (it’s wrong, illegal etc as everybody above said): It is through skill that creativity is born. That’s why people who are unskilled are not very creative. Their work is compromised on two levels. Poor execution and limited imagination. They cannot envision making a perhaps more difficultly styled product because they can’t imagine how to make it. They copy until they can catch up; entire nations have done this! And copying -in theory/practice but not *for profit*- isn’t a bad thing; it’s a way to acquire skills (see Paul Graham) -Which brings me to my next point.
As someone who has been described as the “Rainman of Fashion” or the “Temple Grandin of Fashion” the whole discussion of Rainman was even more annoying. “Rainmen”, iow, autistic people, are not master copyists, regurgitators of factoids, trained human seals performing splinter skills to amuse “normal” people at cocktail parties. The most famous of designers and the most skilled of pattern makers, have decidedly autistic characteristics. Iow, “a Rainman”, far from being a no-talent, is precisely the opposite. The comparison of autistics to imitator copyists like Ashley (or any other stylist cum “designer”) is insulting. Don’t insult autistic people by comparing us to others too limited in imagination, skill and intellect to do for themselves. We’re autistic, not stupid, unskilled or lacking in imagination. Autistics tend to dominate the upper tiers of any industry requiring intellectual rigor and a high degree of skill.
Comment by Cookie on 19 April 2008:
<> Why doesn’t this girl call Jenny herself? Are you her PR rep?
Comment by T. on 19 April 2008:
Please, let’s not let this now get into a discussion about the complexities of autism. Let’s stick to the topic or the whole discussion loses credibility. The issue, as I see it, is simply that a young designer used a well-known and copyrighted pattern and passed it off as an original design at a fashion show and got caught. Most agree this is NOT appropriate (though some disagree and they have every right to be heard too so long as they do it politely). The discussion’s topic is what IS appropriate? (With regard to fashion “design” and using patterns, that is.)
Start making it a discussion about who insulted autistic people and it just gets to be stupid. I have no doubt there are plenty of other forums in which to share your feeling about the pejoratives used for autistic people that are more appropriate than this one.
Comment by T. on 19 April 2008:
Has anyone noticed that this pattern says “Bust 32, Size 14″!!???
What the hell???
Comment by Mrs Boyer on 20 April 2008:
How about this scenario…Let’s say Ms Dayley did actually design something and then produced a home sewing pattern for it. Then one day, she happens to be browsing a website featuring Fashion Week in a certain Mid-western city and sees her work walking down the runway (in a different fabric) being hailed as the design of another. Are we to believe she wouldn’t be outraged by that? Would it then make it better if she phoned the so-called designer & was told that yes the pattern had been used? Does that soothe the situation? I dont think it would. Especially since the package quite clearly states it is not to be used for commercial purposes.
Ive read all the blogs & posted comments concerning this incident. Even the one posted by Ms Dayley. I did not find her response to be very believable or sincere. I dont for a second believe that she would be so forgiving if the situation was reversed & her creativity was being copied.
And placing blame on the original blogger is just ridiculous. She herself works in a creative field and just wants to give & be given credit when its due. Leave her out of it & focus on the one who actually messed up.
Comment by crescentaluna on 20 April 2008:
Hey Daniel, thanks for your response — I salute you, sir! You make an interesting point about the “Vintage Reproduction” thing — seems to me, the name alone (”*reproduction*”) clarifies the whole thing. Nobody is claiming credit for anything except reproducing something. Which takes a lot of artistry in and of itself …
The whole “kerfluffle” (Erin of ADressADay’s word, and I think it’s perfect) is a tempest in a teapot, but it shows what a hot topic this is. Yeah, “Originality is the art of concealing your sources,” but there’s also the whole concept of *intellectual copyright*. We’re all a bunch of “Rainmen” when it comes to the details, aren’t we? otherwise we’d be slouching around in stretch pants and oversize T-shirts and not caring. But we do notice and we do care. Quoting a detail, using a concept, borrowing a proportion — it seems like that’s in the realm of the design process. “Reproducing” is, I’d say, artisinal instead. It’s a art; it’s creative; it’s an impressive and aweinspiring thing when done well; but it’s just a different animal than “original design.” Me, I do both (tho I won’t say how well) and they feel very different.
My final thought … it just seems that if Ashley had displayed some grace though this, she’d be showered in respect now rather than venom.
Comment by Kris on 29 April 2008:
None of this argument matters - it is illegal to use a sewing pattern for commercial purposes without permission. Unless she had permission she’s broken the law. If I were Butterick she would already have her cease and desist, and probably a lawsuit in her hands.
It would be much easier to be a designer if you could just go to the fabric store, pick out your patterns and fabric and sew it up. If that counts almost every 50’s housewife should be called a designer.